It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome

[DOC]

Regarding the previous post. I was talking to Joobz not you. You should let him respond himself. Even though you are no stranger to attacking the messenger yourself with shock words and empty assertions.

 

[Cleon]

Regarding the previous post. I was talking to Joobz not you. You should let him respond himself.

Sorry, this is a public thread. I have just as much right to respond as joobz does. If you want to contact joobz privately, you can send him a private message (PM). If you don't know how to send a PM, I will be happy to assist.

Even though you are no stranger to attacking the messenger yourself with shock words and empty assertions.

Again: If you think a post--any post--is a personal attack, report it. I have given you detailed instructions as to how to do that, as well as my personal assurance that I would not take part in the review of your report.

Therefore, if you continue to whine about "personal attacks," yet do not report them, we are left to conclude that you are merely spewing hot air in a desperate attempt to avoid arguments and look like a victim.

 

[joobz]

Your response like many of your responses has as its first priority to attack me, the messenger, in any way possible.

ACtually, no that post wasn't an attack on you. I have made posts that have been direct attacks, because you have demonstrated to be a dishonest coward. But this post wasn't one of those times. Your argument about evolution was patently stupid. Your inability to understand the allusions I was making highlighted your poor background knowledge.

You suggest reading and learning. Could a person really have a 16000+ hit thread like the Jefferson thread and make 300+ responses in that thread if he didn't do a lot of reading. And would this thread about St. Peter even be in existence if I didn't read about early Christian history. Once again your priority is to attack the messenger -- even if you have to imply obvious falsehoods [like I don't read and learn] to do it.

Regarding the previous post. I was talking to Joobz not you. You should let him respond himself. Even though you are no stranger to attacking the messenger yourself with shock words and empty assertions.

I'm happy to respond to you. I have a thread started that was meant to discuss your views.

You seem to forget, I was very polite in the beginning to you. I had even requested others to be civil, because I thought you were serious in wanted to debate. However, you continually ignored my questions which politely demonstrated the failing in your argument.
YOU returned with claiming me a troll and saying I had not offered a "reasoned explanation". You attacked to avoid answering a question. You are an intellectual coward.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2771097&postcount=375 (please refer to this link for a transcript of this account.)

You still haven't answered that question.
You still haven't provided any "so what" answer.
You have never admitted error when it has been so clearly demonstrated.
You have never apologized for accusing me of trolling when that was so obviously not true.
You still haven't had the courage to respond to the thread I started asking you why.

So yes, I will attack you because you deserve to be attacked. You are the center of your own failing and failed arguments. As such, I believe that my actions are fully within the bounds of the debate. If you feel this is unjust, please report me.

 

[DOC]

Therefore, if you continue to whine about "personal attacks," yet do not report them, we are left to conclude that you are merely spewing hot air in a desperate attempt to avoid arguments and look like a victim.

If I complained about all the personal attacks (direct or implied) I wouldn't have time to put out all the factual info I do. For example I only have to go to the previous page to find 2 negative "personal" comments you've made about me.


Post 409

You're not even pretending to know what you're talking about anymore, are you.

Post 440

Quote by Doc
And would this thread about St. Peter even be in existence if I didn't read about early Christian history.

This is dishonest. Of course this thread wouldn't be in existence because you started the damn thread!

 

[Hokulele]

If <snip> I wouldn't have time to put out all the factual info I do <snip>

Hmm, I must have missed that factual info.

(And in case you misread this, I am attacking your point, not you.)

 

[Cleon]

If I complained about all the personal attacks (direct or implied)

It takes two seconds to hit the button and type "personal attack"--much less time than you spend publicly complaining every time one of these supposed "personal attacks" comes up.

And yet, you won't report the posts--you'll just publicly whine about them. I wonder why that is.

I wouldn't have time to put out all the factual info I do.

Post 409

Not a personal attack, merely an observation of the "factual info" you've been providing.

Post 440

Definitely not a personal attack. I called your statement "dishonest," and explained why.


But if you disagree with me, again, it only takes a couple of seconds to report a post. You could've done so easily in the amount of time it took you to come up with those "personal attacks."

Since you seem hesitant to report the posts with "personal attacks," I can only assume this means that you are fully aware of the fact that most of the "personal attacks" are simply not.

 

[DOC]

Hmm, I must have missed that factual info.

(And in case you misread this, I am attacking your point, not you.)

I have a feeling if you read my 300+ posts in the Jefferson forum you'll find some facts. Either that or the people who made the 16,000 hits must just like to read my non-factual posts.

 

[Tanstaafl]

If I complained about all the personal attacks (direct or implied) I wouldn't have time to put out all the factual info I do. For example I only have to go to the previous page to find 2 negative "personal" comments you've made about me.

Oh, please.

Report it or STFU.

 

[Cleon]

I have a feeling if you read my 300+ posts in the Jefferson forum you'll find some facts.

If you read 300 posts from a random text generator, you'll find a fact eventually. The signal-to-noise ratio, however, is roughly the same.

Either that or the people who made the 16,000 hits must just like to read my non-factual posts.

Did you ever stop to think that people were reading the other posts in that thread--y'know, the ones presenting information contradicting you?

 

[joobz]

Regarding the previous post. I was talking to Joobz not you. You should let him respond himself. Even though you are no stranger to attacking the messenger yourself with shock words and empty assertions.

I responded to your reply at 4:45pm (my times),
You replied to Cleon at 4:56 (my time)
You replied to Hokulele's 5:01pm post at 5:13pm.

My post went unanswered. YOu asked for a response, I gave it to you.
You then fail to respond.
...
...
...
...Coward.

 

[Hokulele]

I have a feeling if you read my 300+ posts in the Jefferson forum you'll find some facts. Either that or the people who made the 16,000 hits must just like to read my non-factual posts.

I did read the information in your posts. I also read the posts where your information was clearly proven to be severely lacking in facts. These posts were provided by Ducky, Cleon, Nova Land, UnrepententSinner, slingblade, joobz, and many, many others whose names are no less important for being forgetten.

My hits to that thread at least were driven by the wonderfully informative posts provide by others. Your posts may have provided their inspiration, but did not instigate my interest. I didn't even bother to read that thread until alerted by another poster.

 

[DOC]

It takes two seconds to hit the button and type "personal attack"--much less time than you spend publicly complaining every time one of these supposed "personal attacks" comes up.

And yet, you won't report the posts--you'll just publicly whine about them. I wonder why that is.

OK, I took your advice, and complained. Unfortunately, I guess I'll have to do that more often. (and not only about you)

 

[kmortis]

OK, I took your advice, and complained. Unfortunately, I guess I'll have to do that more often. (and not only about you)

Oh
My
Skinny!

You really are that stupid. <sigh>

When Cleon said "report it" he meant to click on the little triangle (you know what a triangle looks like, yes?) with the exclaimation point (how about an exclaimation point?) in the lower left hand portion of the post. That reports the post to the mods. If you really feel that you've been attacked, then report it to the mods. That's their job, to take care of those things.

Here. I'll even mae it easy for you. Here's a personal attack you can report.

DOC,
You are by far, the lamest, most moronic, idiodic jackass that I've ever had the misfortune to come across. I think you should be sterilized for the betterment of all mankind, lest your stupidity genes be passed on to future generations. You couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag with a map, a compass and a dedicated sherpa to guide your way. Your topics are as innane as you are pathetic. I suspect that you sniff the ejectimenta of pregnant snails in a deluded idea that it will add brain cells.

Oh, and you smell and your podwarden dresses you funny.


THAT'S a personal attack. Now, report it or shut the **** up about personal attacks.

Yours truely,
KMo

 

[Tanstaafl]

Wow, even I would mod that...

ETA: I had assumed that DOC did in fact mean reported when he said complained. He's not known for precise language.

ETA2: I think that last sentence exhausted my supply of understatement.

 

[DOC]

However, you continually ignored my questions which politely demonstrated the failing in your argument.

I've already answered the "So what" question at least twice and probably 3 times. Why should I do it again. Read my first couple of responses in this forum and you'll see that you are mistaken that I didn't answer the So what question (at least twice). I've got questions coming at me at all angles in several forums. I don't have time to respond to similar questions. If people would read all of my responses then they wouldn't ask similar questions.

 

[kmortis]

Wow, even I would mod that...

ETA: I had assumed that DOC did in fact mean reported when he said complained. He's not known for precise language.

I'm done giving that asshat the benefit of the doubt. He's been nothing but dishonest, disingenious and ignorant to the point of insulting all who have more sense than what pond scum has. How long does it take to report a post? And yet he says that it'd consume all his time, leaving him none to put out any more "facts" of his. No, he didn't know what a report button was, let alone what Cleon meant.

 

[joobz]

I've already answered the "So what" question at least twice and probably 3 times. Why should I do it again. Read my first couple of responses in this forum and you'll see that you are mistaken that I didn't answer the So what question (at least twice). I've got questions coming at me at all angles in several forums. I don't have time to respond to similar questions. If people would read all of my responses then they wouldn't ask similar questions.

Actually, you didn't respond. Your answer was to state that Jesus called Peter the rock. this is not an answer to "so what". It is just another statement that begs the "so what" question.
Allow me to be more clear on what I am asking for: from the thread you have not responded to:

DOC has started a number of threads which all raise a seemingly inconsequential point. (Was peter in rome, was Lief Erikkson christian, Communism better as christian,...). Whenever asked, "So what?", the question goes unanswered.

I wish to start this thread by presenting my believe as to what DOC's goal/view is here. I think it may provide interesting discussion and will hopefully shortcut further digressions down nonsensical paths.

I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because

1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.

The validity of any of these claims are not important to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.

It is with the belief that by presenting enough small facts, these will add up to a large fact. This is obviously an example of either argumentum verbosium or fallacy of the consequent. But I would like for DOC to have a chance to prove me wrong.

Doc, why are these small "facts" relavent?
to what are they relavent?
and why I am wrong?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well Christ did call Peter "the Rock" that he would build his Church on. If the altar of St. Peter's Basilica (maybe the biggest Church in the world) is built directly above the grave of Peter that would be quite a prediction ol' Christ made.

Well Christ did call Peter "the Rock" that he would build his Church on:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mathew 16:18)

If the altar of St. Peter's Basilica (maybe the biggest Church in the world) is built directly above the grave of Peter that would be quite a prediction ol' Christ made.

I've already answered the "So what" question at least twice and probably 3 times. Why should I do it again. Read my first couple of responses in this forum and you'll see that you are mistaken that I didn't answer the So what question (at least twice). I've got questions coming at me at all angles in several forums. I don't have time to respond to similar questions. If people would read all of my responses then they wouldn't ask similar questions.

There's a difference between incoherent blather and an answer. And this is the most basic question you have been posed, as it applies to all threads you have started. It seems to me answering this persuasively should be your top priority in any or all of your threads.

And as far as "So what?" for this thread, so what if Peter spent his last years in Rome? Does that mean Christianity is true? Why? Why does your Jesus quote (which like all other such "quotes" was written decades after his death and probably dosen't resemble anything he ever actually said) say anything about a church being built over Peter's grave?

 

[DOC]

Whenever asked, "So what?", the question goes unanswered.

This is a false statement. I've answered the question in post 13, post 26, and also one time when I said I'm just putting the facts out there, you can do with them what you want. So at least 3 times I answered that question. If you don't like my answers then stay out of the forum. Those are my answers, take them or leave them. If answering a question at least 3 times is being a coward than so be it I guess.

In answer to your question about what is the relevance of my facts I'll just repeat myself again and again --"I'm just putting info out there, what you do with it is up to you". Post 13, and 26 also applies.

I'll also say what I said before, "The fact that these simple facts are causing such a fuss and uproar" tells me (and should tell others) that they are important and make a difference in the scenery. I'm not even completely sure myself why. But all the uproar tells me these simple facts make a difference.

 

[Hokulele]

This is a false statement. I've answered the question in post 13, post 26, and also one time when I said I'm just putting the facts out there, you can do with them what you want. So at least 3 times I answered that question. If you don't like my answers then stay out of the forum. Those are my answers, take them or leave them. If answering a question at least 3 times is being a coward than so be it I guess.

In answer to your question about what is the relevance of my facts I'll just repeat myself again and again --"I'm just putting info out there, what you do with it is up to you". Post 13, and 26 also applies.

What is your motive for putting this particular info out there?

I'll also say what I said before, "The fact that these simple facts are causing such a fuss and uproar" tells me (and should tell others) that they are important and make a difference in the scenery. I'm not even completely sure myself why. But all the uproar tells me these simple facts make a difference.

It is because your posts are mislabeled as facts.